Deathlike, on 04 December 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:
I missed the point where I unilaterally agree with the people I normally agree with.
It "looks" on the surface that I "like" things that normally, but I do disagree with points from them too. It's not just to "randomly disagree", but if you want a productive discussion on how things should/could change.. it's good to see there are holes, flaws, or at least different ways of approaching the problem. For some of us, I think we'd like to see some things at least ATTEMPTED, so that we can evaluate and reevaluate our positions. Heck, I've admitted bad ideas before and I'll probably continue to have some too... but we're being relatively civil about it w/o just stomping over the idea.
There is always more than one way to skin a (grumpy) cat.
I don't remember my response/retort to Fup about Jenners though (I've written enough to forget sometimes). I assume it has something to do with Clan XL and the future IIC Jenners...?
I dunno, it's probably just me, but I feel the that "Like This" button should not be used without comment unless one really agrees with the entirety of that post or the action can be taken as complete support for everything in the "liked" post by outside viewers or the owner of the supported post. If you don't agree with the whole post, it gives unjustly earned popular support for a view in the face of its pointed deficiencies. If I were to like something without pointing out its flaws if it has them, it would feel irresponsible.
You didn't write responses in the relevant conversation in that thread, IIRC, just kept hitting the "like" button on most of his responses. Fup is a good resource when you want to work within the current rules of MWO, but from my conversations he's not very flexible at bending those rules and he doesn't seem open to changing changing the CONOPS of MWO. It's like talking to a brick wall, sometimes. A polite one, but a brick-wall nonetheless. The good nature, though, is what I like about you. You are civil. Fup is civil. Andi is civil. McGral is mostly civil, but has tendencies for breaking down under pressure from people who are incapable or unwilling to put the effort into understand the concepts behind the game mechanics but insist on being part of the balance discussion. Bandito, too, is breaking down here and that's what triggered my response; because I've never seen him do that. Among us, it has always been civil but now he's being hostile or, at the very least, passive aggressive for no good reason....and it's not just this thread, it's in the Catalyst Locust thread, too. Bad day at work or something?
The three of you do also frequently speak in terms of hyperbole. Out of jaded frustration or knee-jerk passion doesn't matter. Yes, a lot of equipment in the game is sub-standard but, with the way you guys talk sometimes you'd think that it was nigh impossible to do well with it. While the equipment in question might be a far-cry from comp-worthy, it's also a far-cry from taking a veritable wizard to do well with it in pub games. I don't even qualify as an uber-leet player, nor do players like Bishop or Sarlic, and we can make and have been making sub-standard equipment work well enough that you would think we
were running meta-builds. Balance in the game is awful and when talking about it you should always under the pretense of comp/computer precision because then balance there
will trickle down to lower skill levels, but let's not also delude ourselves into thinking that the necessity for a weapon to be balanced at that level applies with the same weight down-low. If it did, then concepts like skill floor, skill ceiling, and derived risk-reward wouldn't exist in the first place.
6
